Curry Chandler is a writer, researcher, and independent scholar working in the field of communication and media studies. His writing on media theory and policy has been published in the popular press as well as academic journals. Curry approaches the study of communication from a distinctly critical perspective, and with a commitment to addressing inequality in power relations. The scope of his research activity includes media ecology, political economy, and the critique of ideology.

Curry is a graduate student in the Communication Department at the University of Pittsburgh, having previously earned degrees from Pepperdine University and the University of Central Florida.

Žižek contra Chomsky

A minor war of words has emerged between two of my favorite
public intellectuals: Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek. Late last month Open Culture posted audio of an interview with Chomsky
(apparently from 2012). The interviewer asked for Chomsky's thoughts on
Žižek (along with Derrida and Lacan) in light of Chomsky's views on the
use of theory. In part, Chomsky responded:

What
you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not
interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in
posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a
theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any
of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with
in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the
work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce
conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond
the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a
twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are
decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing.
Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s
saying. Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had
meetings every once in awhile. But quite frankly I thought he was a
total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the
way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven’t the
slightest idea. I don’t see anything there that should be influential.

What
is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all
deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky,
who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just
some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on… well I don’t think I know a
guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his
whatever! Let’s look… I remember when he defended this demonstration of
Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: No, this is
Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that.” And when
later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest
guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me.
It was that “No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right.
At that point we didn’t yet know enough, so… you know.” But I totally
reject this line of reasoning.

Chomsky certainly isn't the first person to accuse of Žižek of substanceless sophistry, but to my knowledge he's the most prominent so far.